That page can not be found!
Sorry, the page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
What can you do?
- đ Check the URL for any spelling errors.
- đ Return to the homepage.
- đ Contact Us if you need further help.
We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding.
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
Majority Shareholder Rights and Ethical Duties in a Closely Held Company
Majority shareholders in closely held companies have some inherent rights â rights they should keep track of and enforce whenever and wherever they can. Doing so is one way to forestall potential problems â the kind of problems that can destroy equity and years of work.
Closely Held Company Majority Shareholder Rights
Here are some of the key rights majority shareholders typically have in a closely held corporation:
Here are some common rights held by majority owners in a closely held company: Control - Majority owners have the right to control corporate management, strategy, and decision-making by virtue of their majority voting power.
Board representation - The majority has the right to elect and fill a proportionate number of seats on the board of directors. Officer appointments - Majority owners can appoint and remove corporate officers like the CEO, CFO, etc. Manage operations - The majority owners have the right to set operational policies and make day-to-day management decisions.
Declare distributions - Majority shareholders generally have the power to declare shareholder dividends and distributions. Amend governing documents - The majority typically has the right to amend corporate bylaws, articles of incorporation, etc. Sale of assets - A majority vote is often needed to approve the sale of substantial corporate assets. Mergers and acquisitions - Majority owners usually have the right to approve M&A deals.
Dissolution - The majority often has the right to voluntarily dissolve or liquidate the company. Inspection rights - Majority shareholders have the right to inspect corporate books, records, and shareholders lists. Shareholder meetings - Majority owners can call shareholder meetings and set the agenda. The specific shareholder rights depend on the corporation's governing documents and the laws of the state in which it is incorporated.
Majority Shareholder Ethical Considerations
With those rights come many ethical considerations that are just as important. Such as:
Duty of fairness - Majority owners have a duty to treat all minority shareholders fairly and equitably.
Duty not to self-deal - The majority owner should avoid self-dealing transactions that benefit themselves at the minority's expense.
Duty of good faith - Majority owners should act transparently and deal honestly with minority shareholders.
Duty not to misuse control - The majority position should not be abused to force or coerce the minority owners.
Duty of disclosure - Majority owners should disclose conflicts of interest and provide access to company information.
Duty not to misrepresent - The majority should provide accurate, truthful information and not mislead minority owners.
Duty to follow rules - Majority owners should adhere to company policies, bylaws, and applicable laws.
Duty of competence - The majority should manage the company competently in the best interests of all shareholders.
Duty of confidentiality - The majority has a duty to keep sensitive company information confidential.
Duty to avoid oppression - Majority decisions and conduct should not be unjustly harsh or burdensome for the minority.
Duty of accountability - The majority should explain and justify decisions impacting the corporation.
Hopkins Centrich, Your Shareholder Oppression Law Firm
Hopkins Centrich PLLC provides cutting-edge, high-quality, creative legal solutions for minority shareholders in Texas Closely Held Corporations when their rights have been abused by the majority owners. Our attorneys and staff have decades of experience in virtually every aspect of business law in The Woodlands and Texas. We have designed and incorporated businesses, managed their every legal concern, engaged in litigation on their behalf, aided with mergers and acquisitions, managed mergers, acquisitions, and sales.
Hopkins Centrich knows Texas business law. We are uniquely positioned to help shareholders when they have ample cause to believe their rights are being violated. When we work with a client, our sole focus is on them. We take advantage of everything technology has to offer in order to optimize how we work. That gives us more time to spend with you, more time to understand the issues, and more time to negotiate and prepare for trial.
We get that no one wants to contact a law firm unless they feel they absolutely have to. When they do, it almost always means that âthings have reached a head.â The attorneys and staff of Hopkins Centrich understand what you are going through. We will make the process understandable; you will know what is happening with your case every step of the way, and you will never have to track us down for answers.
What to Do If You Think Your Minority Rights are Being Violated
First, do not believe anything you read online, or listen to someone who tells you that the Texas Supreme Court did away with Shareholder Oppression lawsuits. The Court merely limited some of the basis for bringing a Shareholder Oppression action. There are still many avenues to relief available, particularly where the majority shareholders have made decisions that are not In the best interests of the business.
Donât wait. If you think your shareholder rights have been trampled on donât hesitate to call. Donât hope that things change, donât let a matter fester, donât try to solve the problem yourself through emails and letters and not-so-calm conversations. Contact us. The earlier you do, the better, there are deadlines for every legal action. The longer you wait, the fewer your legal options.
How We Work
Hopkins Centrich is a team with a deep bench. All our attorneys have extensive litigation experience which they fully use when necessary.
Hopkins Centrichâs attorneys also have âbig firmâ backgrounds. They formed our firm with the goal of retaining the best and most talented lawyers who would provide a greater and more personal experience for our clients.
We do this by using technology to its fullest. We utilize cutting-edge business processes and methodologies to assure that we can continue to deliver the highest quality legal services to our clients. This, in turn, allows us to respond promptly and efficiently to client needs, exceed project requirements, operate effortlessly with narrow timeframes, and develop innovative yet flexible legal solutions at competitive fees.
We are creative. We are agile. We quickly adapt to rapidly changing circumstances, including changes in the law.
Hopkins Centrich is dedicated to upholding the rights of minority shareholders. If you feel you are not being treated right and you are invested in a closely held company â money, time, labor, experience, intellectual property, etc. â please call us as soon as possible.
Our vision statement may sum it up best. We deliver highly skilled, ethical and aggressive legal representation to every client by:
- Responding promptly to our clientsâ needs.
- Anticipating business and legal trends that may affect our clients.
- Managing our clientsâ matters in an efficient, caring, and proactive manner.
- Communicating regularly and clearly with our clients.
Shareholder Disputes in Iowa: Legal Protections Against Oppression
The Iowa Business Corporation Act (Iowa Code § 490.101 et seq.) protects minority shareholder rights in Iowa by tackling shareholder oppression , where majority actions, like denying profits or sidelining governance in undermine minority expectations, allowing courts to grant buyouts or dissolution to maintain Iowaâs Midwestern values of fair corporate governance. Minority shareholders facing oppression in Iowa should seek legal guidance to enforce their rights effectively.
Iowa Shareholder Oppression Explained: What You Need to Know
Under Iowa law, shareholder oppression typically occurs when majority shareholders or controlling parties unfairly prejudice minority shareholders or frustrate their reasonable expectations.
Common legitimate expectations of minority shareholders include fair dividend distributions, meaningful participation in corporate management, transparent access to corporate financial information, and preservation of their investment's value. Oppression occurs when majority shareholders deliberately frustrate these legitimate expectations through unfair, discriminatory, or coercive actions.
Arbitrarily withholding dividend payments despite significant corporate earnings.
Systematic exclusion of minority shareholders from important management meetings and corporate decisions.
Self-dealing transactions benefiting majority shareholders at the expense of minority interests.
Restricting minority shareholdersâ access to critical corporate financial and operational information.
Unfair dilution of minority shareholders' ownership through unjustified issuance of additional shares.
Unjust termination of minority shareholders from employment positions critical to their financial interests.
Iowa courts likewise identify oppressive actions in closely held firms, such as arbitrary bylaw amendments, coercive tactics forcing low-value share sales, concealing financial data, imposing disproportionate burdens, or blocking fair share transfers to harm minority shareholders.
Examples of Majority Shareholder Misconduct in Iowa
Dividend Denial: When majority shareholders unjustifiably withhold dividends despite clear corporate profitability, minority shareholders suffer unfair financial harm. Iowa courts recognize dividend withholding as oppressive, particularly when employed to financially coerce minority shareholders.
Exclusion from Management: excluding minority shareholders from participation in corporate governance and key decisions severely impairs their ability to protect their interests. Iowa courts explicitly identify such practices as oppressive and actionable.
Self-Dealing Transactions: Transactions benefiting majority shareholders at minority shareholders' expense, such as selling corporate assets below fair market value to related entities, represent breaches of fiduciary duty clearly recognized as oppressive by Iowa courts.
Information Withholding: Restricting minority shareholders' access to essential corporate financial records or operational data unfairly limits their ability to accurately evaluate their investment, constituting oppressive behavior explicitly recognized by Iowa law.
Dilution of Ownership Interests: Unfairly issuing additional shares disproportionately benefiting majority shareholders without valid justification significantly reduces minority shareholders' equity and voting power, clearly constituting oppression under Iowa law.
Employment Termination: Wrongfully terminating minority shareholders from employment roles critical to their financial returns constitutes oppressive conduct, especially when used as a tactic of financial coercion.
Iowa Law and the Rights of Minority Shareholders
What Rights Do Minority Shareholders Have in Iowa?
Minority shareholder protection provisions provide critical safeguards for investors in Iowaâs closely held corporations:
- Voting Rights: Minority shareholder voting rights enable influence over electing directors and approving major corporate actions like mergers (§§ 490.701, 490.1101), essential for participation in industries such as Iowaâs agribusiness sector.
- Dividend Rights: Declared dividends must be distributed proportionally (§ 490.640), ensuring equitable profit sharing in businesses like Sioux Cityâs food processing industry.
- Inspection Rights: Shareholders may review records, such as financials or minutes, for valid purposes (§ 490.1602), fostering openness.
- Protection Against Unfair Dilution: Share issuances require a legitimate business purpose (§ 490.601), with fiduciary oversight (§ 490.830) preventing control erosion in businesses such as Cedar Rapidsâ manufacturing community.
Do Minority Shareholders Have Rights Without Majority Control?
Iowa law upholds minority shareholder rights regardless of ownership percentage (§§ 490.830, 490.1430), allowing shareholders to contest oppression, such as exclusion or dilution, through remedies like buyouts or damages in courts across Polk or Linn Counties, despite challenges in gathering evidence.
Legal Access to Corporate Records: Iowa Shareholder Rights
The Iowa Business Corporation Act (Iowa Code § 490.101 et seq.) enables shareholder inspection rights in Iowaâs cooperative business landscape , encompassing industries like Des Moinesâ insurance giants, Sioux Cityâs food processing plants, Cedar Fallsâ agricultural tech startups, and Iowa Cityâs family-owned businesses, ensuring transparency in closely held corporations.
- Statutory Basis for Record Access in Iowa: Iowa Code § 490.1602 allows shareholders to examine records, such as financial statements or minutes, for a proper purpose, like investigating mismanagement, upholding openness in Iowaâs Midwestern corporate culture.
- Procedure for Accessing Records: Shareholders submit a written request specifying a valid purpose, such as valuing their investment, to access records at the companyâs office. Legal help with requesting shareholder records ensures compliance if access is blocked.
- Impact of Denial on Oppression Claims: Denying valid inspection requests suggests oppression (§ 490.1430), enhancing claims for remedies like buyouts or damages in Iowa courts, where legal counsel strengthens a shareholderâs position.
How Iowa Law Handles Share Dilution and Minority Protection
Legal vs. Oppressive Dilution
- Legal: Share issuances are allowed for valid business needs, like capitalizing on Iowa Cityâs biotech growth (§ 490.601), provided boards adhere to fiduciary standards (§ 490.830).
- Oppressive: Dilution is oppressive when it unfairly erodes minority voting power or economic stake without a genuine purpose , breaching fiduciary obligations (§ 490.1430) in Iowaâs cooperative business ethos.
Remedies for Unfair Dilution
- Iowa courts, including those in Polk or Linn Counties, can enjoin issuances, mandate fair-value buyouts, or grant damages, preserving the stateâs agricultural and industrial enterprises.
- Shareholders may utilize inspection rights (§ 490.1602) to secure evidence of bad-faith dilution, fortifying claims in Iowaâs judicial system.
Role of Share Certificates in Proving Ownership
- Share Certificate Definition: A corporate share certificate is a formal document confirming share ownership (§ 490.626), essential for transparency in Iowaâs family-led businesses.
- Is a Share Certificate Proof of Ownership: Certificates furnish evidence, but the corporate stock ledger is the authoritative record (§ 490.1601), crucial for dilution challenges in Iowa courts.
Minority shareholders facing unfair dilution in Iowa should seek legal guidance to effectively pursue remedies and protect their interests.
Legal Limits of Majority Shareholders in Iowa
Powers of Majority Shareholders Under Iowa Law
- Decision-Making Authority: A majority shareholder influences corporate strategy by electing directors and approving mergers or amendments (§§ 490.701, 490.1101), shaping key sectors in Iowa such as agriculture and industry.
Constraints to Avoid Oppression
- Corporate Sales Restrictions: A majority shareholder cannot sell a company without securing board and shareholder consent (§ 490.1101). Appraisal rights (§ 490.1302) safeguard minorities in Iowa courts, such as those in Linn or Black Hawk Counties, ensuring equitable treatment in majority ownership disputes.
- Fiduciary and Fairness Obligations: Majority shareholding actions, including share issuances (§ 490.601) or dividend decisions (§ 490.640), must comply with fiduciary duties (§ 490.830) to prevent oppression claims (§ 490.1430), upholding Iowaâs Midwestern values of fairness in businesses like Cedar Fallsâ ag-tech sector.
How to File a Shareholder Oppression Claim in Iowa
Steps to Initiate an Oppression Claim
- Consult a shareholder oppression lawyer in Iowa to evaluate misconduct under § 490.1430, then draft a verified complaint detailing majority actions like exclusion or unfair dilution.
- Collect evidence and submit the complaint in a district court, such as in Polk or Black Hawk County, seeking shareholder oppression remedy like injunctions or buyouts to address harm promptly.
Evidence Required
- Financial statements showing profit withholding or asset misuse.
- Governance records, such as board minutes, proving exclusion.
- Share issuance documents (§ 490.601) evidencing bad-faith dilution, bolstering shareholder oppression resolution lawyer arguments in Iowa courts.
Minority shareholders in Iowa facing oppression should seek expert legal counsel to ensure a precise and effective lawsuit process.
Fiduciary Duty Violations in Iowa Shareholder Oppression Cases
The Iowa Business Corporation Act (Iowa Code § 490.101 et seq.) enforces fiduciary duties in shareholder oppression disputes to protect minority shareholders in Iowaâs cooperative business environment, exemplified by Iowa Cityâs family-owned enterprises, Waterlooâs agricultural equipment manufacturers, Des Moinesâ insurance giants, and Cedar Rapidsâ industrial firms.
Core Fiduciary Obligations
- Loyalty and Good Faith: Majority shareholders and directors must place corporate interests above personal gain (§ 490.830), upholding fairness.
- Inspection Access: Shareholders may examine records for valid purposes (§ 490.1602), ensuring transparency.
Breaches Driving Oppression Claims
- Violations, including profit misallocation or governance exclusion (§ 490.830), drive oppression claims (§ 490.1430), securing remedies like buyouts or damages in courts across Polk or Black Hawk Counties.
- Such breaches fracture the balanced governance central to Iowaâs closely held corporations, necessitating judicial intervention.
Landmark Cases in Iowa
Maschmeier v. Southside Press, Ltd.
In Maschmeier, the Iowa Supreme Court clearly articulated the fiduciary obligations majority shareholders owe minority shareholders, explicitly identifying oppressive behaviors including dividend withholding, systematic exclusion, and deliberate financial misrepresentation. This landmark decision provided clarity on evaluating reasonable expectations and oppressive conduct, significantly shaping Iowaâs judicial framework for shareholder oppression cases.
Cookies Food Products, Inc. v. Lakes Warehouse Distributing, Inc.
Cookies notably defined cumulative oppressive behavior, emphasizing that multiple smaller actionsâsuch as repeated dividend withholding, exclusion from corporate governance, and financial misrepresentationâcollectively constitute shareholder oppression. This ruling strongly influenced Iowa courts' comprehensive approach to assessing shareholder oppression claims.
Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc
Baur specifically addressed judicial remedies in Iowa shareholder oppression cases, notably emphasizing forced buyouts as an equitable remedy. The court clearly outlined independent valuation standards to ensure minority shareholders receive objective, fair-market compensation, significantly guiding subsequent Iowa court decisions in oppression disputes.
McCann v. McCann
In this significant Iowa Supreme Court ruling, the court clearly defined the fiduciary obligations owed by majority shareholders, explicitly recognizing oppressive behaviors such as exclusion from corporate governance, unjust dividend withholding, and financial manipulation. McCann firmly established the importance of fairness, transparency, and fiduciary responsibilities in closely held corporations, greatly shaping subsequent Iowa shareholder oppression litigation.
Van Horn v. R.H. Van Horn Farms, Inc.
Van Horn notably addressed cumulative oppressive behavior, explicitly affirming that multiple smaller oppressive actionsâsuch as ongoing exclusion from corporate decisions, repeated dividend withholding, and deliberate misrepresentation of financial dataâcollectively constitute shareholder oppression. This landmark case significantly influenced Iowaâs comprehensive judicial approach to evaluating shareholder oppression.
Berger v. Casâ Feed Store, Inc
Berger specifically clarified judicial remedies for shareholder oppression in Iowa, emphasizing forced buyouts as a fair and equitable resolution. The court highlighted standards requiring independent valuations by neutral experts, ensuring that minority shareholders receive fair and objective compensation. This decision notably influenced Iowa courtsâ consistent application of equitable remedies in oppression disputes.
Litigation vs. Negotiation and Mediation in Iowa Shareholder Oppression Cases
Minority shareholders confronting oppression in Iowa have several avenues available, including litigation, negotiation, and mediation.
Litigation involves formal court proceedings, providing structured discovery processes, enforceable outcomes, and rigorous judicial oversight. However, litigation can be costly, adversarial, and prolonged.
Negotiation and Mediation offer practical alternatives emphasizing collaboration, confidentiality, efficiency, and lower costs. Mediation involves neutral third-party facilitators assisting shareholders to reach mutually acceptable resolutions, preserving ongoing business relationships. Negotiation involves direct structured discussions between shareholders without external mediation.
Negotiation and mediation typically provide optimal outcomes when maintaining business relationships is essential, while litigation remains necessary for severe, persistent, or irreconcilable oppressive behaviors.
Filing a Shareholder Oppression Claim in Iowa: Your Legal Options
Iowa courts carefully tailor remedies for shareholder oppression , balancing swift corrective actions with comprehensive long-term structural safeguards. Remedies like judicial dissolution, forced buyouts, injunctions, employment reinstatement, and enhanced governance reforms provide immediate relief and ongoing protection for minority shareholders.
Engaging experienced legal counsel promptly ensures minority shareholders fully leverage Iowaâs robust legal framework, effectively safeguarding their rights and securing the most favorable outcomes.
Iowa courts provide effective remedies addressing shareholder oppression, including:
Judicial Dissolution: may order corporate dissolution in severe or irreparable cases of oppression.
Forced Buyouts: Courts frequently mandate majority shareholders to purchase minority shares at fair market values independently determined by expert valuation.
Monetary Damages: compensation addressing withheld dividends, employment losses, or diminished share values.
Injunctions: Immediate court orders halting oppressive actions such as unauthorized dilution or unfair employment termination.
Appointment of Custodians or Receivers: Courts appoint neutral third parties temporarily managing corporate governance, ensuring fairness.
Corporate Governance Reforms: Courts mandate structural changes in governance practices to permanently protect minority shareholder interests.
Attorneysâ Fees: Courts may award litigation costs and attorneys' fees, particularly in egregious cases of oppressive behavior.
LLC Operating Agreement Breach: Remedies and Legal Steps
Remedies for breach of LLC operating agreement to protect members in Iowaâs cooperative business landscape are outlined in the Iowa Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (Iowa Code § 489.101 et seq.).
Operating agreements, enforceable as contracts under § 489.110, govern member rights, with Iowa courts addressing breaches like mismanagement or unauthorized distributions in venues such as Polk or Linn Counties, ensuring local accountability in Iowaâs close-knit LLCs.
Remedies for Breach:
Damages
Courts grant compensation for losses, such as withheld profits (§ 489.110).
Dissolution
Judicial dissolution is ordered when operations become unfeasible (§ 489.701), a last resort for resolving disputes.
Injunctive Relief
Courts issue orders to halt violations, like improper distributions, preserving equity in LLCs.
Members seeking judicial remedies for LLC agreement breaches in Iowa should consult an experienced attorney to ensure effective resolution
Why Iowa Business Owners Trust Hopkins Centrich in Shareholder Disputes
We secure remedies such as fair-value buyouts for minority shareholders in Iowaâs cooperative business landscape. Our attorneys demonstrate deep knowledge of the Iowa Business Corporation Act, particularly its provisions on fiduciary duties, ensuring strong advocacy in disputes. Their expertise protects shareholders in industries like Cedar Rapidsâ manufacturing, Iowa Cityâs family businesses, and Des Moinesâ insurance sector.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Iowa courts evaluate self-dealing under § 490.830, affirming oppression claims (§ 490.1430) when fiduciary breaches harm minorities, often ordering buyouts in courts.
- Shareholder agreements in Iowa define reasonable expectations, and breaches like exclusion in Iowa Cityâs family firms support oppression claims (§ 490.1430), securing remedies like damages in courts.
- Iowa law treats exclusion from board decisions as oppression (§ 490.1430), with courts granting injunctions or buyouts to protect minorities.
- Evidence like financial statements showing withheld dividends (§ 490.640) or insider payouts strengthens oppression claims (§ 490.1430) in disputes, often leading to monetary damages.
- Iowa courts use valuation methods like discounted cash flow, ensuring fair buyouts for minorities, often with expert testimony.
- Minority shareholders in Iowa may recover legal fees in oppression lawsuits (§ 490.1430) if bad faith is proven, a key factor in disputes, enhancing cost recovery in court.
- Discovery tools in Iowa, including record inspections (§ 490.1602) and depositions, uncover evidence like mismanagement in businesses, bolstering oppression claims (§ 490.1430).
- Oppressive share issuances (§ 490.601) lacking business purpose, trigger oppression claims (§ 490.1430), with courts ordering rescission or buyouts.
- Iowaâs five-year statute of limitations (§ 614.1(4)) for oppression claims (§ 490.1430) starts from discovery of harm, allowing minorities to pursue timely remedies.
- LLC operating agreement breaches (§ 489.110), such as profit misallocation, support oppression-like claims (§ 489.701), with remedies like damages or dissolution.
Importance of Experienced Legal Counsel
Given Iowaâs judicial reliance on fiduciary duty interpretations and complex precedents, retaining experienced legal counsel is critical for effectively addressing shareholder oppression. Attorneys familiar with Iowa corporate law strategically position minority shareholders, advocating effectively for their interests and maximizing favorable outcomes.
Hopkins Centrich as Your Ideal Referral Partner
Hopkins Centrich provides exceptional representation for minority shareholders confronting oppression in Iowa. Our attorneys offer extensive litigation experience, comprehensive understanding of Iowaâs corporate statutes and judicial precedents, and proven courtroom advocacy skills. We deliver proactive, strategic solutions decisively safeguarding minority shareholder rights and investments.
Contact Hopkins Centrich Law Today
Minority shareholders facing unfair treatment in Iowaâs business landscape, from Des Moinesâ insurance firms to Cedar Rapidsâ manufacturing hubs, can rely on Hopkins Centrichâs expert attorneys to enforce their rights under Iowaâs Business Corporation Act. Act swiftly to protect your interests in Iowaâs cooperative economy.
Working with Our Firm
At Hopkins Centrich, we understand that going through the legal process can be stressful and confusing. Thatâs why we strive to provide an exceptional client experience, from your initial consultation to the resolution of your case. Here is what you can expect when working with our attorneys:
Client Intake Form
Complete our online intake form to begin your client journey with us. This form provides your contact details and case specifics so we can assist you right away. An attorney will review your submission. If your matter fits our expertise, our team will contact you to schedule a consultation. If not, we will inform you and try to suggest a quality referral when possible.
Initial Consultation
The next step is the initial consultation with one of our experienced attorneys. This introductory meeting allows us to learn the details of your unique situation. We will honestly assess your case and outline various options moving forward, including our plan of action should you hire us to represent you in your matter. We want you to be equipped with the information you need to make an informed decision regarding your legal needs.
Communication
Throughout your case, youâll have direct access to your attorney and responsible legal staff. We will provide regular case updates and return phone calls and emails promptly. You may speak with more than one attorney from our firm and legal staff assigned to your file. We believe that open and honest communication fosters an environment of trust between the attorney and client and we strive to be available to answer your questions and concerns as they arise. Our goal is to ensure you feel like you are never left in the dark.
Onboarding Process
Once you decide to work with our law firm, we will begin the client onboarding process. You will be emailed a series of documents - including an engagement letter, retainer agreement, and payment authorization - to review and e-sign to complete the hiring process. Should any questions or concerns arise during the clientâs review of these documents, we are at your disposal to answer questions regarding the scope of your representation. Once the signed documents have been completed and the initial payment has been received, a legal staff member or attorney on your matter will gather key information and documents from you so we can get started in a swift manner.
Keeping Client Communications Secure
Client confidentiality is of the utmost importance to us. We understand the sensitive nature of documents and information that we receive from our clients. We use encryption and other security measures set in place by technology professionals to protect your information. You can rest assured that your private communications and sensitive case details remain safe and secure.
Client Participation
We expect prompt, honest, and open communication from our clients, so we can use our time most efficiently and adhere to important deadlines. From the Hopkins Centrich office to the courtroom, your active participation is of the utmost importance while we are representing you in your legal matters. Clients need to attend all scheduled meetings, hearings, and court appearances when your presence is required.
Legal Strategy
Our attorneys have years of experience handling legal matters just like yours. We will leverage our expertise to build a thoughtful strategy customized to your unique goals. We will advise you during each step of the process to make certain you understand the actions we will take to advocate on your behalf so you can feel confident we are taking the appropriate steps to secure the most favorable outcome.
Billing
Our attorneys are paid under various fee arrangements. Depending on your legal matter, we offer hourly billing where we collect a retainer payment to be held in trust, fixed fee arrangements, and contingency fee arrangements. Keep in mind that not all types of cases qualify for contingency or fixed fee arrangements, and it will depend on the nature of your case.
Once the initial consultation takes place, the attorney will explain to you what type of billing and initial costs your particular matter qualifies for. The billing structure is always agreed upon upfront, so there are no surprises. Our rates are competitive for the high caliber of legal services provided.
Attorneys and legal staff carefully track the time spent on your matter and will apply the applicable fee incurred to your bill. Billable time is added up and emailed in a monthly invoice. We require that payment of statements be made within 10 days of receipt, and late payment will incur an interest charge.
